JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order passed by the Lokayukta dated 30.09.2013 (appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition) under Section 12(3) read with Section 12(5) (A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 whereby and whereunder recommendations have been made for suspending the petitioner and for initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against him. 2. The matter was taken up on 06.05.2022 and on that day, the State respondent was directed to apprise this Court about the status/outcome of the order impugned dated 30.09.2013. The order dated 06.05.2022 reads hereunder as :- “The matter has been taken up through video conferencing. None appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appears for the State of Jharkhand. Let an affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent-State disclosing therein the present status/outcome of the order impugned dated 30.09.2013 on or before the next date of hearing. Put up this case on 16.06.2022.” 3. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to G.A.-II, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, has submitted on instruction that no criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner. However, submission has been made that departmental proceeding has been initiated in terms of the recommendation made by virtue of order dated 30.09.2013 (order impugned). 4. Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the writ petitioner has already retired, as such, he is having no instruction with respect to the status of the departmental proceeding. 5. 4. Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the writ petitioner has already retired, as such, he is having no instruction with respect to the status of the departmental proceeding. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gathered from the argument advanced on their behalf that a departmental proceeding has been initiated in terms of order dated 30.09.2013, meaning thereby, the recommendation made by the Lokayukta dated 30.09.2013 has been acted upon so far as it relates to initiation of departmental proceeding by the parent department of the writ petitioner is concerned and, therefore, the order having been acted upon and, as such, it will not be just and proper to quash the order taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rang Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 117 wherefrom it would be evident that on the basis of the finding recorded by the Lokayukta, the FIR was instituted under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, and in view thereof, declined to interfere with the said FIR on the ground that since the FIR has already been instituted it will come take its logical end and therefore applying the same ratio on facts herein since departmental proceeding has already been initiated on the basis of recommendation made by the Lokayukta, it will not be apt and proper for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Lokayukta 6. This Court, applying the aforesaid principle, is of the view that since the departmental proceeding has already been initiated, as such, it would not be proper for this Court to quash the order passed by the Lokayukta. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, in case of any adverse decision in the departmental proceeding, it will be left open upon the writ petitioner to assail the said order before the appropriate forum/court of law. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Consequently, I.A. No. 2224 of 2014 also stands disposed of.